Sub menu

Chris Norby – Quite Simply BAT CRAZY!

Fourth District Supervisor Chris Norby has always been a bit eccentric. Whether it is his knack for delivering unsolicited history lessons or his rambling rants, usually I simply pass offÂ his eccentricity with the thought, “that’s Norby.”Known forÂ taking mid-afternoon naps behind the Old CourthouseÂ bushes,Â Thursday Norby crossed the line over into lulu-land.

In a mass email to constituents Thursday, Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby accused Sheriff Sandra Hutchens of mounting a â€œmisguided jihadâ€ against people requesting permits from her agency to carry guns.

Norbyâ€™s email blast urgedÂ law-abiding citizens to attend the next board hearing on Hutchensâ€™ plan to scale back the number of concealed weapons permits. ButÂ it wasÂ the use of the term â€œjihadâ€ to describe the sheriffâ€™s proposal that upped the vitriol in his message.Â

Hutchens responded: â€œIâ€™m really disappointed in the tenor this is now taking. Iâ€™m not trying to fiddle around with the Second Amendment.â€

As for being compared with a â€œjihadist,â€ she said, â€œI think itâ€™s kind of out there.â€

And in another leap of Norby â€œlogicâ€ he proclaimed in his email; â€œAll those concerned about the illegal snooping by hidden security cameras on Supervisor Nguyen and myself should speak.â€

Illegal?!!!! They’re security cameras. TheyÂ are not illegal, clandestine, and have not been used to illegally snoop. Snooping is defined as:Â watch, observe, or inquire secretly [syn: spy].

The cameras zoomed in briefly on Supervisors Nguyen and Norby. It cannot be snooping if the action occurred only once, it was not routine, and nothing confidential or private was observed.

Please! For the love of God, can someone pleaseÂ get some lithium for this guy?

Post navigation

18 comments for “Chris Norby – Quite Simply BAT CRAZY!”

mandamom

February 6, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Norby is such a tool. He's been asleep at the wheel of the county for years, and now he wakes up and has some kind of spastic fit because of this? The county is sinking in financial ruin, and he thinks this is "jihad" worthy? The whole board has got to go.

Sergeant

February 6, 2009 at 8:26 pm

Ha, ha Ha! That's a funny opening paragraph, but also an important one during the debate over "privatizing" security in the Hall of Administration. Your comment about Mr. Norby is -to my knowledge only " rumor" and not a part of any public record. In other words, someone took care of the embarrasing matter in a respectful way. I guess respect is a one-way street?

Your post also raises a question about the private security company hired for the Hall of Administration. Will they be required to follow the same confidentiality standard protections and respect for Mr. Norby's personal behavior's as those followed by the professional public safety members whom now staff the Board meeting room? Will they have the same "loyalty" standard to members of the Board of Supervisors that now exists? If a Board member calls them a name will they name call back? And, so forth…………

Jihad (from dictionary,com)
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.

Seems pretty right on the money to me. It's pure emotions on the part of the Sheriff, it's not based on facts or misdeeds, that many CCW's will be expired early by her. BTW there was no such legal definition for expired early till she made it up. Legislating as she is, from behind the badge, making rules up as she pleases.
Bringing the SWAT team into chambers was pure BS we all know that!

It doesn't fit what the Sherriff is doing at all; it's a word that intends to inflame

Li'l Truth

February 7, 2009 at 2:41 am

Well duh, like her tactics were intended to make those in attendance to feel warm and fuzzy?
I would expect you to rally to the aid of those who wish to express their 1st Amendment Rights.
That should include the use of jihad even if you find it repugnant. What's up with that, the liberals will only defend free speech when it's their speech or they agree with it? That's just wrong!
The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that might offend someone.

There's a big difference between protecting free speech and knowing how to use words correctly.

RHackett

February 8, 2009 at 8:39 pm

How was their 1st Ammendment Rights violated? Were they prvented from speaking?

Unless these CCW wackos are that easily intimidated wihout their handy pistolas.

Li'l Truth

February 8, 2009 at 8:40 pm

It's called perspective Dan, you see it your way and I'll see it mine.
You still have not addressed the Sheriffs Dept. actions as the pure and simple attempt at intimidation that it is. You and the ACLU should be all over this one. This argument with the chief law enforcement officer in the county is about freedom of political speech as well as her usurpation of legislative power.
This is a very good time for all liberals who say they believe in the exercise of free rights to rally with those from the other side of the political spectrum and show some bipartisan support. Don’t miss the bus, as you accuse so many from the other side of doing so often.

The problem is, I'm a big gun control advocate and don't believe anyone really needs a CCW permit; wanting one is one thing, but demonstrating a real need for one is actually pretty limited. I think the sherriff has the right to call it as she sees it in regards to security. I would prefer that guns be limited to law enforcement and sportsmen who hunt (though my brother would say bow hunting is far more sporting). I think equated Norby;'s use of the word "Jihad" with a free speech argument is absurd. He's free to say what he wants, and I;m free to say what I think about what he said. Calling out the ACLU on something like this is laughable.

Li'l Trith

February 9, 2009 at 1:18 am

RHackett,
Maybe you missed the word attempt. When the highest law enforcement agent in the county rolls out the swat team, plain clothes and uniforms, as well she says, undercover sheriffs, to an open public, recorded meeting, searches and questions individuals in the audience who just happen to have green buttons on, that signify them as the opposition. Has officers sending text messages to each other that contain personal knowledge of those individuals in attendance and specifics about them. I think that's an attempt to humiliate, intimidate and discourage public debate.

If I remember correctly, the very same tactics were used by police in southern cities in an attempt to silence those in favor of equal rights a number of years back. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

Calling those who disagree names like wackos, nut or “crossed the line over into lulu-land” is mean spirited and insensitive as well. It diminishes their feelings, which are just as valid as your own. You’re just being mean and attempting to dehumanize them in an effort to make your point seem more valid. You are engaging in the same kind of behavior that you accuse others of.
(part 1)

Li'l Truth

February 9, 2009 at 1:20 am

Dan, since you have stated you believe in â€œgun controlâ€, you have admitted you believe in limiting Rights that are enumerated. In fact enumerated in such language that in part states â€œshall not be infringedâ€. Remember the same people that are having their duly issued licenses â€œexpired earlyâ€ without due cause, had to submit finger prints, pass FBI/DOJ background checks, classes and tests, submit their firearms/serial numbers, pay good money, show good cause and put up with a less than friendly environment to get them to begin with.

Even under the previous sheriff, it was not as easy to obtain a CCW as many would have the pubic believe. Two Sheriffs back was even worse, a manufacturer of weapons, that I know, was required to transport his legally manufactured, fully automatic weapons (contracts with govt. agencies) to a firing range for test firing, without being able to carry a concealed weapon, as were many other licensed firearms dealers. It made those folks prone to attack by criminals during transport. Now really how smart is that? Somehow the current folks that are being â€œexpired earlyâ€ without due cause, either donâ€™t pass the threshold, dollar wise, with the amount of money they transport or other reasons, that are still unclear and seemingly arbitrary on the part of Sheriff Hutchens, at least to the general public at this point.

Some facts that you have conveniently overlooked or misstated were, that no private information was snooped on. Would you consider your pda or personal notes as private? What or whos security was at risk that made looking at those, close enough to read, a security need?

Why, if Sheriff Hutchens knew that it was both a public and recorded meeting, did the sheriff order â€œunder cover staffâ€ to be part of her â€œsecurity entourageâ€ which is the current reason she gives, for not publicly releasing the videos as required by law? The text messages make the depts. intent and disdain pretty apparent as well.

All of which leads back to what I said in my first paragraph here. When the force of govt. is used in an attempt to intimidate public debate over the authoritarian use of police powers over a segment of society and they are attempting to seek redress with their elected officials (who agree with them btw) in a peaceful and reasonable manner and are met with SWAT teams, uniformed and undercover officers, questioned, searched and spoken of (actual conversation and text messages) in the manner that the OC Sheriffs Dept has done, yes itâ€™s high time for an investigation into civil rights abuses. Where is the ACLU when you need them? Oh yes, thatâ€™s right, it has to do with the 2nd Amendment and we FEEL differently about that one, even if this is really a 1st Amendment issue. The fact that SCOTUS has decided that the 2nd Amendment is, an individual civil Right is beside the point. Thatâ€™s very liberal of you.

Let me just add that the Sheriffs apology for the text messages was really pretty lame as well. The BoS were duped when they picked her and she needs to go sooner rather than later. She is the one than has chosen this path instead of fixing the many problems that face the OC sheriffs Dept. She chose to make a statement that she was going to make law, and do something no other sheriff in the state has done, â€œexpire earlyâ€ those she decided didnâ€™t have â€œgood enoughâ€ cause. It is in fact her jihad, her vigorous and emotional crusade. It has been her choice to waste tax money on this issue, both at DOJ and locally.

Northcountystorm

February 9, 2009 at 1:25 am

While I don't think the word jihad is an apt description of the Sheriffs conduct(nor the word wacko an apt description of the people complaining about the Sheriff's CCW policy), I would substitute managerially deficient and overreaching. By not having a grip on what her own department was doing, it has resulted in the Board effort to contract out security. Overreaching because she took a good, existing CCW policy that had some bad apples in it and instead of getting rid of the bad apples, has imported an L.A. gun control phiolosophy to remove the permits from those where there was no evidence of abuse or political favoritism in obtaining the permits. It might play well with the white wine crowd of the CWLA but I suspect the Sheriff has shot herself in the foot with the public at large.

Our new layout does make it somewhat confusing, but for the record. I wrote this post not Dan.

1) No notes, or text on the PDA, were visible. John Moorlach has made that clear. If anyone has conveniently overlooked these facts I think they are named Supervisor’s Nguyen and Norby.

2) If the advocates of “CCW’s for everyone” were actually “intimidated” into not speaking because of the presence of a few uniformed deputies, then I question their psychological fitness to carry a concealed firearm. If a uniform scares them, what else does? A shadow? A Latino? An African-American? An Arab-American?

And no, this has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment to regulate who an carry a concealed weapon.

According to an email sent today by Supervisor Norby: Supervisor Norby’s brother and Chief of Staff, Eric, just scored a plum gig with the OC Health Care Agency. I’d like to know what Eric’s qualifications are in the area of public health. I guess the Norbys aren’t done suckling at the public teet. Funny how Republicans always want limited government, but not as much if they get to run it.

John Thorley

February 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Thank you, Liberal OC, for endorsing Sheriff Hutchens. Your endorsement seals her fate and pretty much eliminates her chances for election in 2010, this being “America’s Most Republican County.”

What are you liberals doing in OC anyway? That’s what LA is for. The “Orange Curtain” exists so we can live separate and peacefully.

As for me I’m off to look at properties in Texas, since millions of people in 40 other states have CCW permits without any incidents. Oh yeah, and thanks to you liberals, 30% of California’s wealth has left in the last 5 years. I’m next. Me, my business, and the jobs that go with it are outta here. Hopefully you potheads have a solution as to where your handout money will come from. The state already went broke thanks to a third of the wealth leaving and now the rest of it is on the way out.